The problem is that if you delete something that is NOT evidence of a crime, you may still have problems. How do you prove that it was your grocery list from last week and NOT a todo list for robbing a bank?

If you insist they prove it was, suddenly the (deleted) text file becomes evidence that you deleted. It's kind of like being arrested for resting arrest in the absence of any other reason you would be arrested.

There are plenty of ways. For one you could have a friend do it when they know you have been arrested. If I was a criminal with evidence on my know I would do that, or setup a deadman's switch to do it if I have not checked something in a while

The advise is sound. Do NOT consent to a search, make it clear you do not consent to as many people as possible. Even if you don't think you have anything to hide, do NOT consent to a search, ANY search... Ever... Period... You don't have to be obnoxious or disrespectful to make it clear you do not consent.

If you think they are searching your phone, say something like "Officer, I didn't give anybody permission to search my phone and I object to you looking at it." If they ask you why, you only need to repeat "Officer, with all due respect, I do not give permission for any searches." If they ask you if you have anything to hide, keep saying the same thing.

Further, I would recommend that you not answer any questions they may ask either. Once you have provided your identification, you are done answering questions with anything but "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now?" If they say "No" or indicate that you may not leave, then you ask "Am I under arrest?" If they say you are not under arrest start the process at "May I leave now?" and keep going around the same bush until they let you leave or arrest you. Once they arrest you, SHUT UP. Say nothing but "I want my lawyer present before I will answer any questions." If they let you go, GO!

Follow this process, even if you have nothing to hide. Where it may seem to be a pain, you literally have NOTHING to gain by consenting to searches or answering questions and doing so may cost you, so it makes no sense to be cooperative. If they come to your door, don't invite them in, just step outside and close your door behind you. Remember, no answers to their questions, and no permission for any searches. Go back inside once they let you go.

This is hard to do if you've taken a vow of hospitality. I've had a very surreal conversation about that with a cop one time. On one hand, I specifically said that he did not have my permission to enter my house, on the other, since he knocked on my door, he'd get a meal out of me. Fortunately the guy was Catholic and eventually understood what I was saying or we'd still be there looking at each other funny.

It was a bit odd is all. I didn't know American police officers aren't allowed to share apple juice and cookies with people while on duty. The guy said that if he ate any of my food and got sick afterward, I could go to jail.

I don't know why any sane government would want to put me in jail in the first place, they'd have to spend a lot of money fixing holes in walls.

Look at it from the police officer's perspective. There are a number of nutcases out there who would gladly harm anybody in uniform. A sane police officer realizes that it is not always obvious who these people are, so the best course of action is to be ready to react and not get into dangerous situations if you don't need to.

This is why I do EVERYTHING I can to be nonthreatening when dealing with the police. I turn on lights at night, keep my hands in plain view, and if I have to go digging in my pockets or the glove compartment I first tell the officer what I'm going to do, turn to face away from him before I do it and make sure to show them my palms before I turn back. I want them to be as comfortable and feel as safe as I can because there job is risky enough without me causing them undue stress.

That's basically what I did:) the guy at first thought I was either doing a horrible job of bribing him, or I was quoting some stoner movie or other, eventually I explained that it's a religious thing and he completely changed attitude / relaxed. Anyway, turns out that they're not allowed to have any homemade food, at least in this area.

The reason I'm saying this is because they can use their eyes, ears and noses. So they can look at what is visible behind you and listen to what's going on in the house behind you. If you go outside and close the door and step away from the house, they are not getting the "free" albeit limited search while they talk to you and that gives them less opportunity to "invent" a reason to search.

I'd also figure that the police would be less threatened by stepping away from the house because you are putting the "unknowns" of what's inside further away from them. On that note, you want to make sure you make no threatening looking moves. That means you keep your hands visible and sit down if possible, speak respectfully and stay calm.

What needs to happen is US police need to be shifted from local funding to state based funding and control only. This means local cities and communities side with the citizen against state police in the recovery of damages, which means the city doesn't fine itself when it investigates and pursues police corruption but stick the bill to the state. This also provides uniform training across the state, breaks up corrupt reinforced collusion via transfers across the state, which also allows the transfer in of

Amazingly- lots of videos on Youtube show it doesn't piss them off as much as it flusters them. I feel uncomfortable watching the videos but the police always back down. Sometimes they threaten to arrest the person but you have to have a specific charge to arrest someone. Which leads to the other respectful statement made in the videos.

"Am I under arrest?"

That's a legal phrase too- because if you are not under arrest, you are free to go after a fairly brief period. They have to arrest you to hold you.

It's very easy to for them to mess you up into trouble- but if you stick to certain specific stock phrases and obey their orders (that was another one-- "Are you ordering me to do this?") then it's clear from the videos that while they have a significant advantage in these situations- they are well aware of their own legal boundaries. Once you show you are aware of their legal boundaries they back off.

It may be more fun to rant on the internet about the bad cop who doesn't respect a citizen's rights, but it's probably more productive in terms of restoring the chilly relations between LEOs and citizens to let the cop know you didn't take his probing personally, and that by respecting your rights (even if it took a few minutes to do so) he's demonstrated he's one of the good cops, not one of the bad cops.

He's demonstrated no such thing. All this shows is that he's afraid of the repercussions for breaking what constraints on their behavior are still in place.

Since the summary links you to a stupid news article and not the guides themselves, here is the ACLU Guide [aclu.org] and EFF Guide [eff.org]s here.

The EFF guide you linked has not been updated yet to reflect the Riley decision. Some of those answers need to be changed because they are incorrect now. The ACLU "Know Your Rights" manual does not appear to have been updated either, but it simply doesn't address the issue of cell phone searches incident to arrest at all.

Since the summary links you to a stupid news article and not the guides themselves, here is the ACLU Guide [aclu.org] and EFF Guide [eff.org]s here.

The EFF guide you linked has not been updated yet to reflect the Riley decision. Some of those answers need to be changed because they are incorrect now. The ACLU "Know Your Rights" manual does not appear to have been updated either, but it simply doesn't address the issue of cell phone searches incident to arrest at all.

You are correct - they have not been updated. Why are they even mentioned in the summary and the article? Either way, I think the sources themselves are more valuable than the silly article.

The US police are infamously variable. In some towns they are a model of how the police should be, respectful of the law and all citizens until proven guilty. The next town over they are little more than a legal mafia, happily resorting to intimidation and extortion to extract fines and reacting to any challenge to their authority with a campaign of persecution.

If you're in the latter, you're basically screwed. If you don't hand over the password, the officer will decide he smells a hint of pot in your car

Policeman: "Well, we found this dirty phone in an extended search on the ground a few hundred feet where we arrested Mr. Jones. We searched it to learn who it belonged to."

Judge: "And where did you find the incriminating information?"

Policeman: "Well, we turned the phone over to our investigative crimes unit. They ran the 'strings' command on all the information on the phone and gave us a printout. When we looked through the printout, we found there

Sad but true, if police want to do something illegal, and you argue with them, they *will* do it anyway, and you *will* be in further trouble for attempting to resist.

On the plus side, it seems like that could actually *help* you, seeing as how it would be inadmissible in court, so if you were on trial and their evidence was found that way, great for you! (I am not a lawyer. All my knowledge of law comes from watching fictional tv and reading fictional books. Ask a real lawyer if what I said is actually tru

Don't resist arrest? Don't plan on it, but that won't stop the cop from "narrating" what he wants others to believe what is happening. Case in point, cop pulls over a guy and walks up to the car knowing he's being recorded by his dashcam and has on a wireless mic. You hear the cop say "stop reaching for my gun" and see him lean in the car window. It looks like the guy has tried to take the cop's gun. The truth is that there is a 2nd cop car with a dash cam recording from an angle that allows you to see the driver's hands clearly on the steering wheel, even as the cop leans in his car to unbuckle his seat belt. The cop drags him out the car and throws him on the ground. The guy tries to break his fall and the cop starts shouting "stop resisting". This really happened... google Marcus Jeter New Jersey. The cops and the DA conspired to conceal the 2nd dashcam that showed the driver's hands/not/ reaching for the cops gun.

Sad but true, if police want to do something illegal, and you argue with them, they *will* do it anyway, and you *will* be in further trouble for attempting to resist.

That's why you DON'T resist. You respectfully make it clear that you did not consent to a search of your phone. If they ask "May I look at your phone?" you say "No, not without a warrant", if they do it anyway, you might want to say "I didn't give you permission to look at my phone, please put it down" Keep trying until they tell you to shut up.

If the police insist on doing something illegal, like searching your phone without a warrant or permission, it's going to be a matter for the courts to figure

The article has some good advice, and what I would consider some bad advice:

"Lock your phone"

- GOOD ADVICE! A simple passcode is your first line of defense against any physical intrusion, just like the lock on your front door.

"Repeat 'I do not consent to this search'"

- GOOD ADVICE! Not only does it establish that you deny consent, it shows the cop that you know (at least some of) your rights, which will get most of them to think twice before doing anything that might violate your rights (especially if you're taping the encounter).

Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."

I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court. [constitution.org]

Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.

The problem is you wont remember those rights when you wake up from the coma in jail with a TBI and associated memory/function loss. To be then railroaded for resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer and anything else they can think of.

I figured the problem was that after they murder you for standing up for yourself, the media will do everything possible to demonize you as a radical extremist, and the cycle of fascism will renew itself.

Most people involved in a pre-textual motor vehicle stop and issued a warning for a trivial non-offense won't know to say the magic words that begin their legal defense: "Am I free to go? Why am I being detained?" and when the polite officer says, "Well, I'm sure you've got nothing to hide, let me search your vehicle, and no matter what I'll make sure you're on your way quickly," many quickly hope compliance is their best option in the short-term.

So they say, "Yeah, go ahead," instead of the alternative, "I do not consent to search and invoke all protections afforded me by the Constitution; while I am cooperating within those constraints, please advise me promptly when I am free to go."

You'll get searched anyway, whether it's your phone or your car. You might get arrested anyway. But having invoked your rights instead of freely waiving your rights gives the defendant ample opportunity to assert their innocence in court without having already accidentally proven their guilt without the benefit of counsel.

I expect most people, despite the Supreme Court ruling, will find their phones searched anyway; consider stop-and-frisk in New York City. Please set a passcode on your device, preferably alphanumeric instead of a simple PIN, and avoid interacting with law enforcement, they have better things to do than read a neckbeard hacker's text messages to his mom about picking up more Mountain Dew at the store.

(Nevermind Border Patrol checkpoints in the US or Customs/Immigration interviews...)

Openly film the cops with one camera. Have the other one set up in an inconspicuous location, where it can see them them beating the crap out of you and smashing the first camera. Do not inform anyone about the second camera until its footage is safely on YouTube.

"My lawyer has advised me that rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised, they become weak. Therefor I do not and cannot consent to this search."

It conveys, very directly:your refusal of the search requestyou are a constitution, and rights advocate... meaning you will a big headache for the cop if he continuesyou have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department

You should refuse EVERY search. EVERY time. With absolutely no exceptions.The majority of arrests start with a consensual search by police of someone that legitimately thought they had nothing to hide. Everything is illegal. If a cop searches your home and he wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. It's as simple as that.

People get into these situations where someone backs into their car in a parking lot and the cop that arrives casually asks "Mind if I check your car for open alcohol?" and they think "LOL that's funny! Of course I don't have that." But the cop isn't just looking for alcohol is he? He starts lifting your floor mats... does he think there's a beer bottle under there? In once instance a man bought a car from the local police impound. A few days later he got pulled over, consented to a search and low and behold the car had a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. They arrested him and he spent a month in jail before they finally realized it had the drugs when it went into impound. ALWAYS refuse search requests. ALWAYS.

Also i should point out that I completely agree with you. I was arrested when I let the police search my car and they found a sandwich bag in which I kept a 'stash' of my medication in. I have grade 4 arthritis in my ankle and it can really get bad at times. I always tried (past tense) to keep a few in my car because I never wanted to get caught in the situation where I needed them and didn't have them. These were vicoden-ibuprofen, and I had a regular prescription for them. I ended up getting charged

Also i should point out that I completely agree with you. I was arrested when I let the police search my car and they found a sandwich bag in which I kept a 'stash' of my medication in. I have grade 4 arthritis in my ankle and it can really get bad at times. I always tried (past tense) to keep a few in my car because I never wanted to get caught in the situation where I needed them and didn't have them. These were vicoden-ibuprofen, and I had a regular prescription for them. I ended up getting charged with posession and OUI. The posession was dropped when I came back and showed the prescription, the OUI was continued without a finding - but what they don't tell you is that you still have to go through the RMV's version of an OUI, which is not pleasant at all - especially seeing as I got one that I deserved some 22 years ago when I was about 21. So this one counted as my second, and required an "interlock device" be installed in my car for 2 years. I just can not describe to you how awful this device is. Food sets it off, and every time it goes off, you have to pay 50 bucks.

Right. You should always have your prescriptions in a bottle. The easiest way is to keep the paper prescription in your car and the bottle at home. If you ask for your pills to be split into 2 bottles at the pharmacy, they'll do that for you. Then you can keep one in the car. Don't consent to tests, don't answer questions, at all.

Police: "Where are you headed this evening"You: "Is this about that taillight? The Autozone guys replaced that. Do you think I can get my money back? You pay good money and they do

I go by "be polite, be efficient, have a plan to kiss everyone you meet". With police, that means sound cooperative, but make it clear you don't really want to share information about anything unless you legally have to. If I'm asked why, my answer is that it's what my patent lawyer told me American custom is. If you do want to talk to the guy, remember to always talk to the person rather than the hat. If you're asked a question, answer it then ask something irrelevant/friendly right after. You want to int

Just like muscles, exorcizing your rights is a pain in the ass. Apathy is the governments best weapon.Imagine if everyone refused the search every time...;-)Do it for your kids man. Maybe some day we wont even get asked anymore.

Another one of those rights that can use some excercise is the right to walk away from a police encounter. Just because a cop wants to talk to you doesn't mean that you have to talk to him. Granted, it's a good idea to not be a dick, as the cops can legally ruin your day. Be polite and direct without agreeing or admitting to anything is the best course of action.

yeah, i agree - but as soon as you refuse they say "Ok well we're going to have to wait a couple hours for the canine to get here". What do you do then?

Ask them if you're being detained, or if you're free to go. If they insist on keeping you there for two hours, then you're clearly being detained. Go with it and then sue them for unlawful detention afterwards. Odds are fair (not great, but fair) that you'll get a few thousand bucks for your time.

The first thing you should do is avoid eye contact, slowly back away, making calm reassuring noises. You should also keep your arms wide; it makes you look bigger and less like prey. Finally, you should lie on the ground, and play dead. They will quickly lose interest and move on. Do not run, as it will trigger their hunter/prey instincts.

If however they start to eat you, you should start to fight back vigorously.

Or if you are really worried about it, encrypt your phone and lock it...

OK, I didn't mean "let them" in terms of literally saying ok or giving body language to mean the same thing... but basically not protesting since you "knew" (wrongly apparently) it would be inadmissible..

My phone is always listening for voice commands, which is great for things like making calls, sending messages, starting navigation etc., but I want a new command specifically for situations like this: "OK Google Now: Lock and Record". It should lock my phone and start a continuous video and audio recording which is streamed to a server somewhere. Even better if it's a separate hotword so I don't have to say "OK Google Now" first to warn the officer I'm about to screw with his plans to screw with me.

If I can activate it by voice, it won't matter whether the phone is locked when it's taken from my pocket. And with the recording, I'll have proof that I did not consent to the search. Streaming will ensure that proof can't be accidentally destroyed by, say, dropping my phone just before a cruiser happens to roll past.

Despite the strong privacy protections established in the court's Riley decision, police still have the right to search your phone without a warrant in a few certain scenarios known as âoeexigent circumstances.â This includes, for example, the abduction of a child, when police suspect a person is in imminent harm, or âoesome imminent threat of evidence destruction,â says Fakhoury. âoeSo its not like a carte blanche rule.â In those instances, there's simply not much you can do.

Wouldn't matter. The police search to produce evidence that is admissible in court. If they were to search a cell phone illegally, they could not use any of the evidence obtained from it in court, thus making the search useless in the first place.

You do understand that parallel construction is basically perjury, right? And that police have outright lied about the circumstances of arrest on many occasions?

So if they illegally look, and then radio to one of their buddies to call in an 'anonymous' tip, you're pretty much screwed.

Or like when the police officer tries to delete pictures off your phone, and you tell him no, and he arrests you for resisting arrest... which is absurd since you weren't in the process of being arrested in the first place.

If you're going to purely rely on the fruit of the poison tree or the integrity of a specific police officer you've just met... you're doing it wrong.

Not all cops are dishonest. But enough of them are that you should more or less not trust that any given one is.

Wouldn't matter. The police search to produce evidence that is admissible in court. If they were to search a cell phone illegally, they could not use any of the evidence obtained from it in court, thus making the search useless in the first place.

Except that parallel construction to circumvent the 4th would likely result in dismissal with prejudice, and possibly prosecution of the offending party, were it discovered. Ethics portion of basic criminal law course.

How do you prove it's actually parallelly constructed? Sounds like a hell of a thing to prove, especially considering how un-auditable the police consider themselves to be (see earlier story about Mass. SWAT teams claiming they're privatized so have no oversight).

Tell them repeatedly and ad nauseum that you do not consent to the search; object loudly and often, and make sure your attorney hears about it. Anything they uncover will be inadmissible. If you're extremely lucky, your cell phone will contain the only incriminating evidence, and you can walk away on a technicality.

The illegal phone search could support the original "hidden" search, while another team/person on the LEO side is building a "plausible, legal reasoning" that you or someone connected to you is guilty of some crime.

If you are already under arrest or otherwise detained when they decide to illegally search your phone... I don't think the castle doctrine or even very wide interpretation of stand your ground will help you... doubly so as they would have already checked you for dangerous objects on your person.

How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."/. groupthink is, as usual, that all cops are dishonest and looking to railroad everyone, because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.

Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra. I don't like driving to San Diego from Phoenix and having to get inspected along I-8. It angers me....but the solution isn't to be a dick to the guy out there in the papers-please guard hut. Keep voting against the idiots who make these things possible.

In the meantime, just keep your phone locked.

...oh, and don't be a goddamned criminal.

My attorney is the lead partner of probably the most succesful firm in Portland, OR and he disagrees with you. Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent, words directly from him to me. That means no talking, etc. That doesn't mean you have to be a complete arse, but you're being disingenious by suggesting most cops are decent folks, they are not, and even the ones that are are institutionalized into sticking up for the scumbags.

If a cop hates you he WILL find a reason to arrest you, you can't stop that, what you can do is make sure the DA's office has crap-all to work with in court and set yourself up for a wrongful arrest civil action (free college for your kids).

> Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocentThat is only true for things worth hiring a lawyer over. As long as your confident your being hassled over a minor violation not worth a lawyers time, you might as well try the cheapest easiest time to present your case. Talk the cop out of the ticket, you don't have to try and talk the judge out of it, or get a lawyer involved. Anything under a few hundred dollars, no jail...This does mean you have to recognize, and shut your m

My attorney is the lead partner of probably the most succesful firm in Portland, OR and he disagrees with you. Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent, words directly from him to me. That means no talking, etc. That doesn't mean you have to be a complete arse, but you're being disingenious by suggesting most cops are decent folks, they are not, and even the ones that are are institutionalized into sticking up for the scumbags.

My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.

How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."/. groupthink is, as usual, that all cops are dishonest and looking to railroad everyone, because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.

You aretrolling, right? It's well-known that it's harder to convict a cop of a crime than any other citizen (they are not military, they're just citizens with badges) and yet they are convicted of crimes about as often (per capita) as anyone else. Except rape. They're convicted of rape four times as often.

...oh, and don't be a goddamned criminal.

Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.

from the article:
These miscarriages are avoidable. Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, "Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations," even as "Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood." Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken a

As Mr. Silverglate writes, "Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations," even as "Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood."

It's actually worse than that, because they've subcontracted the task of writing the regulation out to corporations, who pay them for the privilege! And the dysfunction lies in the intent to not have the law be understood. Whole teams of lawyers author the bills, which are then handed to the congresscritter along with a campaign contribution.

No, it never required "intent" in the manner people use the word. You don't need to have the "intent" to commit the crime. Remenber, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" exists, so you don't even have to know whatever it is is illegal.

You must have intended to have done the action that resulted in a crime. Even if you didn't intend malice, and had no idea it would result in a crime or any harm at all, it's still legally "intent". Even if a reasonable person would have presumed no harm would come, the "e

Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.

I heard that before, and it seems to be a quote from some book, but I have never ever heard any evidence of that. So tell me three things that an average citizen with no intent of breaking the law might do that would be felonies.

It's just something the author said because it's catchy. From an interview here [ulrichboser.com]:

The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.

So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.

If these were isolated incidents, ie not common practice, the SCOTUS wouldn't have been bothered to rule on the practice.

because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.

If you see me commit a crime, and you don't report it, guess what? They charge you with accessory to the crime. I don't think it's even slightly uncalled for to expect law enforcement personnel to abide by the same laws th

How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

So, are you suggesting we should all consent to illegal (and unconstitutional) searches on the assumption that since we're innocent it's OK for the police to break the law because the won't find anything??

Sorry, but no. When the police start abusing their power, the solution isn't to allow it to happen.

So, are you suggesting we should all consent to illegal (and unconstitutional) searches on the assumption that since we're innocent it's OK for the police to break the law because the won't find anything??

I make no such suggestion. I advocate, in my post, which you seem to have ignored, keeping your phone locked and working toward electing officials that would make changes toward the laws that impact the sort of searches where a phone might be a target.

Hi there. Typical Slashdotter here. I don't think all cops are out to get me. In fact, I've been friends with a number of cops over the years (always socially, admittedly), and I'd trust any of them to act fairly and justly. Most of the cops I've interacted with on-duty have also been pretty swell folks who seemed interested in doing a good job and putting away the actual bad guys.

However, I also strongly believe that I have a right to privacy, which should be especially obvious when I'm innocent. I also believe that if we fail to exercise our rights, they will, over time, be lost. The fact that I'm not engaging in any crimes (other than the three felonies a day the average American engages in) means that they have no valid reason to go rooting around through my stuff, so I will make them work if they want to go through it. I'm polite and firm in my refusal to let them search anything, but at the same time, I hold off on the "am I free to go" stuff until they initiate the dickishness. After all, they're probably just trying to do their job, and I don't need to give them a hard time in going about the stuff that's perfectly legal and sound.

Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra.

Perhaps, but what do you say when they ask you where you are going? I would suggest that you NOT answer. Yes, it may raise suspicion when you say "Respectfully officer, I'm not required to answer that question." but not knowing why you have been pulled over what choice do you have? Now if it's obvious why you've been pulled over I suppose it serves no purpose to start the "may I go" bush beating, but it's also not in your interest to start confessing or feeding the officer any information he might not already have.

So at at traffic stop what do you do? Start by asking "Is there a problem officer?" or "How can I help you officer?" Put the car in park and turn it off. Get your license, registration and insurance card ready. Keep your hands in plain view (on the steering wheel) and your window open no more than half way (at night turn on the inside lights in the car). Go from there. If you don't want to go full press "Respectfully officer I don't have to answer that question." then go with non-answers like "Where are you going?" => "I'm out for a drive." Why are you a long way from home? => "Taking a vacation/Visiting some people I know" or whatever says nothing specific. "Do you know how fast you where going?" => "I was keeping pace with other traffic." Why do you think I pulled you over? => "I don't know for sure officer, why did you?" If it's obvious he's not letting you go, don't ask. But if he hands you back your paperwork, THEN you ask if you are free to go.

The whole idea here is to be non-threatening, respectful and cooperative, but not giving any definitive answers, agreeing to any claims the officer may make or consenting to any searches and then ending the interaction with the police as quickly as possible.

I agree with most of what you suggest, but I thought the conventional wisdom was to *not* go for identification until asked. If you are rummaging around in the glove box, the police officer has no idea if you are going for a gun. Granted they have no idea anyway in that moment, but the correct steps are everything else you suggested - interior light, hands on wheel, etc., then wait. They can see your hands as they approach from the rear and have less cause to suspect you are arming yourself. Then when t

Penalties include up to ten years in prison, or a fine of up to $1,000 and two and a half years in jail.

If you're going to bother at all, don't just quote the penalty, quote the whole statute. It clearly states that intent to use the tools for a criminal purpose is required for prosecution. This is the case in many states, and what it means is that you're free to carry around locksmithing tools as long as you aren't engaged in any criminal activity that would be aided by using those tools.

Penalties include up to ten years in prison, or a fine of up to $1,000 and two and a half years in jail.

If you're going to bother at all, don't just quote the penalty, quote the whole statute. It clearly states that intent to use the tools for a criminal purpose is required for prosecution. This is the case in many states, and what it means is that you're free to carry around locksmithing tools as long as you aren't engaged in any criminal activity that would be aided by using those tools.

In other words, you'll incur an additional count if you possess lockpicks (or a sledge hammer, for that matter) while breaking into a house, and you might get charged if you have lockpicks while walking around wearing a ski mask and carrying a canvas sack with dollar signs on it, but other than that you're good to go.

Hey, this is/. Don't go stating facts to back up your argument. OB OP - in many states intent is required; of course in some sates you can basically get a buiness license and call yourself a locksmith.

Let them take it, then sue the crap out of them. If you argue or fight against it, they'll slap you with "Resisting" something or the other, and you'll be screwed anyways.

The way this was phrased might make one disinclined to follow it, but the basic point is fairly sound. The important part is to clearly state that you do not consent to the search before they take it. It'll be up to your lawyer then, but if you say nothing then the prosecution might try to argue that you consented through your silence instead of raising an objection. If the officers choose to search despite your objection then what they find on the phone and everything found as a result of that initial finding could be thrown-out, and if an entire case is built on that initial phone evidence then the case could be dismissed entirely.

At least, that is how I understand it. I am not a lawyer though.

In all honesty, based on what lawyers have published on the Internet, many of the defendants that could have benefited by not consenting to a search in the various ways police do search have done themselves in through their own words. The best advice is to not speak to the police beyond the incidentals necessary by law (ie, states with ID laws, minimal discussion at traffic stops, etc).

"Can I look at your phone.""Sure here. Nice isn't got two cameras...""Can you unlock the phone for me...""Oh. You mean look at the contents of my phone. Well you see my wife is a legal student, and if I let you see them without a warrant, then I will never get laid again."